Rubio would be same age as Obama during entering 1st term (47). He would also have the support of the fiscal conservative base, he's extremely personable, smart, and photogenic.

Perfect candidate to beat Hillary Clinton.

Why would he have the support of the fiscal base? I don't see it. He'll have to out-flank Paul to get that set, and he's not done anything of note to manage it. His big accomplishment to date is to anger the right with his immigration stance, and then tucking tail and hiding when the waters got too rough.

Rubio as a presidential candidate is such a long shot right now that I have a hard time seeing how he manages to get his name back into the picture without simply forcing the issue by showing up.

The way I see it, Rubio's campaign would end up a lot like Rick Perry's campaign ended up. Rubio is like Obama in that there's not a lot of substance there, but he looks pretty doing it.

Here's the dilemma the Republicans have: How do you run as a fringe radical in the primary (in order to win the psycho base) and then veer back toward the center to win in a general election. You have to eat babies in the primary and they declare you're a vegan in the general.

Why would he have the support of the fiscal base? I don't see it. He'll have to out-flank Paul to get that set, and he's not done anything of note to manage it. His big accomplishment to date is to anger the right with his immigration stance, and then tucking tail and hiding when the waters got too rough.

Rubio as a presidential candidate is such a long shot right now that I have a hard time seeing how he manages to get his name back into the picture without simply forcing the issue by showing up.

The way I see it, Rubio's campaign would end up a lot like Rick Perry's campaign ended up. Rubio is like Obama in that there's not a lot of substance there, but he looks pretty doing it.

I don't know much about Rand Paul yet. I would have much rather voted for his dad.

Rubio's stance on immigration is by no means a 'show-stopper'. Garnering Latino support is imperative for any winning Republican Presidential campaign.

Here's the dilemma the Republicans have: How do you run as a fringe radical in the primary (in order to win the psycho base) and then veer back toward the center to win in a general election. You have to eat babies in the primary and they declare you're a vegan in the general.

It's funny how you radical Socialists keep using these words in an attempt to paint your opponents, who only want to preserve the American dream, and improve the greatest democracy the world has ever seen.

The only extremists here are you. Hell bent on 'transforming' the US into an unworkable, corrupt, and bankrupt cesspool.

It's funny how you radical Socialists keep using these words in an attempt to paint your opponents, who only want to preserve the American dream, and improve the greatest democracy the world has ever seen.

The only extremists here are you. Hell bent on 'transforming' the US into an unworkable, corrupt, and bankrupt cesspool.

Here's the dilemma the Republicans have: How do you run as a fringe radical in the primary (in order to win the psycho base) and then veer back toward the center to win in a general election. You have to eat babies in the primary and they declare you're a vegan in the general.

This is the long and short of it. It disincentives our best candidates.

I actually agree with everything he said there. Getting the defund bill past the Senate will be a huge task that likely won't happen - certainly not this time around. That doesn't change the long term strategy that Cruz seems to have set up. Whatever anyone thinks about the bit of theatre this week, it's clear that Cruz is playing the long game on this one.

Lock it up. It'll be close. Christie is the only R that has a legitimate chance of sinking the SS Clinton machine.

No way the establishment Eastern Wall Street money Republicans will let a Rand Paul or Cruz get the nomination. If by some unlikely circumstance that it does happen, we're talking about Barry Goldwater in 64 levels of fail. Also, I have about as much of a chance of being Senate Majority leader as Ted Cruz does.

Lock it up. It'll be close. Christie is the only R that has a legitimate chance of sinking the SS Clinton machine.

No way the establishment Eastern Wall Street money Republicans will let a Rand Paul or Cruz get the nomination. If by some unlikely circumstance that it does happen, we're talking about Barry Goldwater in 64 levels of fail. Also, I have about as much of a chance of being Senate Majority leader as Ted Cruz does.

I don't think it will be Booker. Not yet, anyway. Though, with Clinton on the ticket, it won't much matter. Especially against anyone not named Christie.

If after all that's happened, and what's happening now, the Dems run Clinton, especially with income inequality this bad, it means they've learned nothing, they intend to do nothing except support the status quo, and they deserve no one's support. They sure as hell won't get mine.

If after all that's happened, and what's happening now, the Dems run Clinton, especially with income inequality this bad, it means they've learned nothing, they intend to do nothing except support the status quo, and they deserve no one's support. They sure as hell won't get mine.

This sentiment is exactly why Hillary has no chance to win the nomination, let alone the election. The Democrat party is on the cusp of their own civil war much like the Republicans are experiencing. They are now where the Republicans were in 2007.

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood.

If after all that's happened, and what's happening now, the Dems run Clinton, especially with income inequality this bad, it means they've learned nothing, they intend to do nothing except support the status quo, and they deserve no one's support. They sure as hell won't get mine.

That may be the case, but we're talking realistically here. You are in the vast minority of people who, when it comes down to it, won't vote for "their" candidate.

I personally don't believe that all the people who say I voted for Ron Paul/Gary Johnson/Whoever the **** actually do...which is why those candidates end up with a sliver of a percent of the vote. If I had more faith in that, I would throw my vote behind someone I agree with closer to 100% ideologically.

However, since we've been talking about basic facts in several threads here today, the basic fact is that we are in a two party system. My first criterium for a candidate is that they are in favor of opening up the voter rolls, not closing them, as I believe the right to vote is the most important right we have remaining. That automatically negates the Republican party, based on their actions for the past several years (decades). At the moment, that only leaves the Democratic party to ensure that the Republicans don't gain power.

I'm pretty sure you and I had this exact same conversation leading up to the election.

If Libertarians could divorce themselves from the economic ideology that taxes = bad, I could easily support a Libertarian candidate. But that, much like Democrats growing backbones or Republicans not basing themselves entirely on leaving out whole segments of the population, is never going to happen.

The most inexpensive, and efficient health care system will always be two party patient-doctor transactions where the individual takes responsibility for payment with pre-tax HSA's that can be used for education, healthcare, and retirement.

Based on what evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricejj

Anybody who thinks Hillary Clinton won't be the Democrat nominee for President in 2016 is plain smoking rocks.

After Obama, nobody stirs up the liberal base better than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she's a woman.

Just because you judge people by their gender/race (which you are doing right now) doesn't mean other people do as well.

Examples: Democrats aren't going to vote for Michelle Bachmann. Ralph Nader earned more votes as a green party candidate than Jill Stein. There have been zero women US presidents in history.

This is similar to the debunked racist claim that people voted for Obama "'cause he's black" - when statistic modeling shows that Obama would have earned at least 2% more of the vote had he been white.

Lock it up. It'll be close. Christie is the only R that has a legitimate chance of sinking the SS Clinton machine.

No way the establishment Eastern Wall Street money Republicans will let a Rand Paul or Cruz get the nomination. If by some unlikely circumstance that it does happen, we're talking about Barry Goldwater in 64 levels of fail. Also, I have about as much of a chance of being Senate Majority leader as Ted Cruz does.

We'll see. It depends on if the banksters and 1 percent power structure want a Republican candidate that can actually win. Paul or Cruz would get absolutely eviscerated in the general. If they do want an R to win, they'll be unprecedented corporate primary money behind Christie. Balance him with a popular Hispanic Western female governor like Martinez and they have a real shot.

My guess is that even though Wall Street made out pretty well under Obama's "Socialist" lolerz policies, they'd prefer Christie over Hilldawg.

We'll see. It depends on if the banksters and 1 percent power structure want a Republican candidate that can actually win. Paul or Cruz would get absolutely eviscerated in the general. If they do want an R to win, they'll be unprecedented corporate primary money behind Christie. Balance him with a popular Hispanic Western female governor like Martinez and they have a real shot.

My guess is that even though Wall Street made out pretty well under Obama's "Socialist" lolerz policies, they'd prefer Christie over Hilldawg.

It is telling that of the only three candidates anyone is talking about, Cruz and Christie are getting blasted by their own party and wouldn't win the nomination, and the other would end up losing in one of the most lopsided elections ever.

Rand is not his dad; he sold his soul to the Republicans, which means he won't get the youth vote. Just who do people think will vote for this guy?

But you're right...and I think it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about national issues. He's stayed pretty quiet so far.

This sentiment is exactly why Hillary has no chance to win the nomination, let alone the election. The Democrat party is on the cusp of their own civil war much like the Republicans are experiencing. They are now where the Republicans were in 2007.

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood.

BS it's why every pundit viewed hillary as the largest figure in the room with rethugs looking small. she handed them their asses in that congressional hearing. the only people looking at it any differently are the ones with a sore ass over it.
fact is,there is no civil war brewing in the demacratic party,if hillary decides to run she'll sail through the primaries and get the nomination. It's not harry reid or nancy pelosi that are getting embarrassed like john boehner or getting challenged in his primary like Mitch McConnell. With rethugs attacking ted cruz and john boehners inability to lead his own party it's no surprise that they try deflect from it. there's a civil war going on and it is not in the dem party.

BTW,if rethugs & conservatives truely believed that hillary wouldn't make out of the primaries they wouldn't already be forming super pacs to run against her. they are trying to use the terry Mccauluff/ cucinelli governors race as a proxy to attack clinton and it failing miserably.